...and who going to do that? you? gee, julie thought iraqi kurds already "freed" by bnush 0. are you rewriting history or something?

you and your kind would keep others fighting your wars in middle east until end of time.

and when are you signing up? You and your kind would rather convert to islam rather than defend yourselves.

If what you call imperialism is defending our way of life (which includes allowing those on the Left to humor us with their lunatic ideas) that I am a imperialist. If your nonessential interference is freeing people from tyranny, then I am for it.

Those of your kind would rather let Saddam invade Kuwait, have another go at Iran, and nuke Israel. Those of your kind would rather see us leave, knowing full well that it would be more costly for us to pick up the pieces later. If we left, there would nothing stopping the Islamists from taking over goverments (they have the arms to do it) and driving Israel into war. Were it not for the US, there would be nothing stopping the Israelis from expelling all Palestinians (they have the power to, and the Palestinians lost), triggering a wider war which may include nuclear weapons. Then again, your kind sees that as "win-win" situation, more propaganda, and burdening the United States in the long run. Your kind would rather let China destroy Taiwan (it allows for lower prices).

Your kind of lassez-faire foreign policy is something from the Nixon administration, a man who many on your side considers a racist. It would mean ignoring human rights for the sake of "stability". Even the failed president Jimmy Carter didn't suscribe to that policy.

Your kind's "internationalism" is kowtowing to the Europeans; the same Europeans that made the world into a mess and don't know how to fix it ( and yet they blame us fo all this). May I ask what good have the Europeans done within the last ten years? or Twenty? What about that organization that you kind idolizes, the UN? The organization is so mired in corruption and ineffectuality that is resembles the Third World nations that have hijacked it.

Your kind would rather see our military reduced to a police force, yet at the same time, your kind would love to see the Second Amendment repealed (thereby making us incapable to defend ourselves). Your kind cries about the balloning defecits, yet would have no problem bringing dead policies from the past that would bankrupt our economy. Your kind claims that they want the US to not be as involed in world affairs, forgetting that such a policy facilitated the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocides. After all of your failed ideologies, what would make those of your kind "experts" on policy making?

The problem in regards to our [inconsistentcy in] foreign policy is due to the people that populate the bureaucracy in Washington. There are people in the State Department, the CIA, and even in the Defense Department that suscribe to your kind's virulent posion. Whatever the President would do would be undermined by these people. Unfortunately, our President Bush doesn't have the power to remove them. If he did, our foriegn policy would be more consistent.

How about acting in the US' interests rather than fighting wars that have nothing to do with us? Iraq was no threat to us and until it presented an immediate threat to Israel we shouldnt have intervened.

How about acting in the US' interests rather than fighting wars that have nothing to do with us? Iraq was no threat to us and until it presented an immediate threat to Israel we shouldnt have intervened.

Problem is, the USA's interests are global, we don't get involved the world falls apart. Sick.

Yes, our interests extend globally, but they compete with one another. While it may be in our interest for every gov't to be a free trade democracy, balancing our budget is a competing interest. Only when we have an overwhelming interest in something and we KNOW we will prevail (or have no choice) should we intervene.